Free Keene

Comment by dub

May 7, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

He got no reason to complain if all he has to do is give them his name.

I’m sorry but it seems like a lot of you are acting like he’s being mistreated or something when it’s his own decision not to cooperate.

Like it or not the laws we got are the laws we got and you can either change them the way most people do and the way that works or you can do it this way, which clearly isn’t working

I have no sympathy for someone who won’t eat and refuses to give his name but then wants to whine about mistreatment

Comment by bile

May 7, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

This is useful. He points out what is wrong about what was submitted (civil vs criminal). For individuals who plan to attempt to use their system in the future, take note.

Comment by Paul

May 7, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

Dub, and many others, in 1955:

Ms Parks has no reason to complain if all she has to do is move a few seats down.

I’m sorry, but it seems a lot of you are acting like she’s being mistreated or something when it was her own decision not to cooperate.

Like it or not the laws we got are the laws we got and you can either change them the way most people do and the way that works or you can do it this way, which clearly isn’t working.

I have no sympathy for someone who refuses to move a couple seats down, but then wants to whine about mistreatment.

Dub, and many others, in 1932:

Mr. Gandhi has no reason to complain if all he has to do is pay some tax on salt.

I’m sorry, but it seems a lot of you are acting like he’s being mistreated or something when it was his own decision not to cooperate.

Like it or not the laws we got are the laws we got and you can either change them the way most people do and the way that works or you can do it this way, which clearly isn’t working.

I have no sympathy for someone who won’t eat and refuses to pay a little salt tax, but then wants to whine about mistreatment.

Comment by bile

May 7, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

I think dub that if you’ve payed attention to the entirety of this situation there are at least a few non-Sam related facts which I would hope raise some concerns. The sanitation and heating/cooling of the jail in particular. In the least they should be investigated for accuracy. Another thing which would be good to find out is the legitimacy of requiring him to give his name. Sam claims it’s not required by law. If that’s true… “Like it or not the laws we got are the laws we got”… and they no gots a law requiring him to give his name meaning he’s being held illegally.

Comment by Wiles

May 7, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

Dub,
“The laws we got” state that Sam has a RIGHT to remain silent and a RIGHT to a speedy trial (see constitutional amendments V, VI, VII). Further, the laws we got in NH state that all Sam is required to give is his finger prints, which, although he wasn’t given that opportunity at first, he’s given! This is beside the fact that the authorities already know and have known his name.

Regardless of “the laws we got,” the man hasn’t done anything wrong. Common sense dictates that he shouldn’t be in jail.

Comment by Ryan Gubele

May 7, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

> He got no reason to complain if all he has to do is give them his name.

The law says he must not be denied the right to remain silent for any and all questioning. It doesn’t require him to give his name; just the opposite.

> Like it or not the laws we got are the laws we got

While we’d prefer no coercive government at all, I’m sure that as long as there is one, we’re all fully in favor of the law which states we may remain silent, and the law which states we must be given a fair and speedy trial. So why aren’t the government people obeying it? Why aren’t they being arrested for breaking it?

Comment by Andy

May 7, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

Paul, That was classic!

Comment by Mike

May 7, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

Dub said: “I’m sorry but it seems like a lot of you are acting like he’s being mistreated or something when it’s his own decision not to cooperate.”

He is being mistreated. I would never imprison my friend/child/parent (or anyone) because they refused to answer a question I asked of them. It is inappropriate. It is mistreatment (at least!).

It *is* Sam’s decision to not cooperate. It’s a remarkably brave one considering the govt has threatened to imprison him *indefinitely* until he *does* cooperate, and also considering that most people in our society think it’s alright to be mistreated in such a manner (like you do). But deciding to not cooperate with a thug is not necessarily a bad thing.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

By that logic Dub would Sam be at fault for failing to cooperate with a mugger when he demanded his wallet or his life? All he had to do was give his wallet right? No reason to complain of injustice?

Comment by Andre Davis

May 7, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

If you are going to play by their legal rules, you really should read this case – Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

There is no 5th Amendment right to refuse to provide your identity, like Sam is doing.

I’m not saying that what they are doing to Sam is right or moral, but there is no legal basis in our current system for him to refuse to identify himself.

That is one of the many reasons why this Writ was denied.

Comment by Justin

May 7, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

So what is the system waiting for to try Sam? They’ve created an Identity for his purposes: Sam A. Miller, apparently. They have the charges against him, they have him in custody and thus can excuse their exercise of jurisdiction over him.

I see nothing stopping the trial court from going through their motions to pass down a sentence that Sam can further refuse to acknowledge.

This ordeal is why the government is so worried about unemployment: people who don’t have anything left to lose are going to stop giving in, they’re going to stop handing over their wallets. The rate of civil disobedience is only going to grow as more able-bodied, State-abused, peaceful and logical people are left without excuses to ‘just give in’.

Comment by Justin

May 7, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

dub:

What’s your name?

(now imagine if I could keep you in a stinky, dirty, violent place until you answer)

Comment by dub

May 7, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

All I’m saying is that right now he can make decisions that will make his conditions better and if he chooses not to make those decisions then I can’t feel sorry for his conditions

Comment by Anton Lee

May 7, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

George and Justin make awesome points, as do many others besides the usual arguments that Dub decided to drop on us.

Dub, don’t you think in the land of the free you wouldn’t have to give your name if you didn’t want to? Don’t you think in a free country a person has the right to videotape on public property?

I’m sure you’re a smart enough person to understand that these rights can’t be taken away by these people. I know you’re smart enough to figure out that Sam isn’t the one initiating the force here, it’s the government.

Comment by Mitch

May 7, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

I thought the state was supposedly there to protect us. I don’t think allowing a man to starve after throwing him in a cage for no reason really counts as protection.

Comment by William

May 7, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

I think that a few people have missed the point. Regardless of

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004),

keeping Sam imprisoned is clearly the state’s retaliation against him for not choosing to obey. By the State’s figuring, it does not need a reason, and I believe that Americans are mistaken if find this acceptable. I have no desire for my tax dollars to pay for the imprisonment of a man who has done nothing wrong, but I would happily come out of my own pocket for this case because I believe that it serves as a reminder that Americans desperately need. He has committed no crime against society or any individual. The fact that Sam could roll over and improve his condition is irrelevant because the United States does not have any legal authority to force Sam’s cooperation. We are not talking about a criminal, we are talking about a private citizen that happens to have challenged the assumed authority of the State: authority which “We the People” did not grant the State. To sympathize with the State in this case is to be its slave because the very idea of Sam’s imprisonment is principally unreasonable.

To view Sam’s condition as self-imposed displays a gross fundamental misunderstanding of our rights as Americans and as human beings.

Comment by Paul

May 7, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

Dub,

Every civil disobedient person in history could have immediately improved their conditions if they had just given in. You seem to think that the duty of every man is to act to maximize his own personal comfort or profit, rather than to do what is right.

If a robber says, “your money or your life”, and his victim says, “I will not submit to you by giving you my wallet”, so the robber shoots him, the robber is charged with murder, not just theft. The robber is 100% morally responsible for the shooting is well.

Comment by jzacker

May 7, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

Ok let’s look forward….

I do not think the judge will keep Sam in jail indefinitely. That is sort of a threat to get Sam to follow their rules. I do believe the judge WILL keep Sam in jail for up to six months before holding a trial. So, can Sam wait that long? Is it even worth it?

Sam obviously can’t go that long with just milk. I think it’s time for him to give his name.

Comment by abbie

May 7, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

As I understand it from the order, the writ was denied because Sam has remedy when he is brought for trial. But the writs were filed because he is not getting a trial….

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

I think we have to be prepared for the possibility that neither Sam nor the judge will give in. We need to think several steps ahead.

What can we do to put Keene District Court Inc and its parent companies on the defensive?

@jzacker What do you think is a threat exactly?

I don’t think it’s anyone’s place but Sam’s to talk about if/when he should cave to the judge.

Comment by Paul

May 7, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Form the December 3, 1955 issue of the Montgomery Advertiser:

J. H. Bagley, manager of the bus company, issued this statement to The Journal after learning of the circulars:

“The Montgomery City Lines is sorry if anyone expects us to be exempt from any state or city law. We are sorry that the colored people blame us for any state or city ordinance which we didn’t have passed. We have to obey all laws just like any other citizen. We had nothing to do with the laws being passed, but we expect to abide by all laws, city or state, to the best of our ability”

~~~

From Dec. 6, 1955:

“I have no objection meeting with them at any time,” [Bus Attorney] Crenshaw said. “But I think they should hold their meeting with city and state officials – not us. We’re not responsible for the law, but we do have to obey it. I explained that to them six months ago.”

Last night’s resolution stated in part that Negroes have been forced on “numerous occasions” to relinquish their seats to whites, but never vice versa.

“I’m sure that’s irritating to them.” Crenshaw said, in reference to the statement. “But the law requires it at certain times.

Comment by Paul

May 7, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

Interview with Laurie Pritchett

Interview Date: November 7, 1985

QUESTION 1
INTERVIEWER:
ALL RIGHT, UH, CHIEF PRITCHETT, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING THAT’S QUOTED ABOUT YOU, IT SAYS, YOU WERE, YOU SAID I’M NOT, IT’S NOT A MATTER OF WHETHER I’M A SEGREGATIONIST OR AN INTEGRATIONIST, I’M A DULY CONSTITUTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, DEDICATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS, UH…WITH BEING REMINDED OF THAT UH, QUOTE, I’D LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOUR POSITION WAS IN THOSE DAYS – WERE YOU A SEGREGATIONIST, UH, WHAT WERE YOU COMING FROM?

Chief Laurie Pritchett:
No, uh, as I stated, position was Chief of Police of the City of Albany – uh, it didn’t deal in segregation or integration. Uh, my responsibility was to enforce the ordinances and state laws of that city and state. Uh, as I’ve told Dr. King many times, I did not disagree with his motives or his objectives, it was his method. I believed in the courts, he believed in the streets. So uh, I’ve never been classified as a segregationist, and not as an integrationist – I was administrator of the City of Hi… of uh, Albany Police Department.

QUESTION 2
INTERVIEWER:
ONE OF THE VERY FIRST ENCOUNTERS THAT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE DOWN THERE WAS WHEN UH, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF SNIC SAT IN AT THE TRAILWAYS BUS STATION TO TEST THE NEW ICC RULING ABOUT DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES USED FOR INTERSTATE TRAVEL, AND THEY WERE ARRESTED, AND THAT CAUSED QUITE A CON…BIT OF UH, CONTROVERSY, THAT IT WAS A VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL LAW TO ARREST THEM. WHAT, WHY WASN’T IT A VIOLATION?

Chief Laurie Pritchett:
Well, they were not arrested on a federal charge, they were arrested on a city ordinance of failing to obey the orders of a law enforcement officer, uh, had nothing to do with interstate commerce. The SNICs were the original ones to come in to Albany, Georgia. They dealt mostly with the young people. So I would say that their arrival upon the scene and uh, going into the churches, talking to the young people, the college students, the high s…uh, school students – this started the Albany movement. Uh, this SNIC movement later coordinated with the Albany movement and from there, into Dr. King’s movement.

QUESTION 3
INTERVIEWER:
SO WHAT, REALLY, WERE THEY VIOLATING?

Chief Laurie Pritchett:
They were violating a city ordinance. They were asked to leave, they was not on any bus; they were not eating uh, counters; they were obstructing the flow of pedestrian travel in and out of the bus station. They were asked to disperse, they failed to do so, and they were arrested.

Comment by cyberdoo78

May 7, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

Sorry to pile on to you Dub, but in this case you are wrong. A basic tenet to liberty is that you own yourself. No one has the right to take your life, liberty, or property.

You’ve probably been taught that we are a nation of laws, that we are a democracy, and so on and so forth, and you believe this because you don’t know any better. Nor have you sat down and applied logic to the situation.

We are not a ‘nation’ of ‘laws’, we are ‘nation’ of people. People existed before laws existed. The idea that we are a democracy violates the principle that you own yourself. That is that a simple majority can violate the rights of the minority is by simply voting to do so is a violation of your right of self ownership.

So either you own yourself or the government owns you. If the government owns you, you have no rights, you have privileges. You have no right to life, liberty, or property if you are property.

If you own yourself the government in violating your rights is the one in the wrong, it is the one that should be disobeyed. It is this former viewpoint that ‘we the people’ are resisting against.

So ask yourself, are you a slave, or are you a human being?
You can’t on one hand say, Sam has a right to life, liberty, and property if on the other hand you tell him he has to submit.

Comment by Lpviper

May 7, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Maybe Sam ought to get himself out of there before somebody gets pissed and does something retarded…

I know when I read that garbage all I felt was ANGRY, but I guess I’m calming a bit now

Comment by Mitch

May 7, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

I am worried about Sam’s health. Is there any way we could get him some protein drinks or something so he has some more sustenance? And if so would he want them or just stick with milk?

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

If we really want to help Sam I suspect he would be more pleased if we figured how to get maximum leverage out of what he is doing.

Comment by dub

May 7, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

@Mitch – they aren’t “allowing him to starve”, he is choosing to, huge difference. now you could say that because he is choosing not to eat that they are allowing him to starve but isn’t the whole point of this that people have the ultimate right over their own body, so in this case he has every opportunity to eat and he’s not taking it, it’s his own fault if he’s hungry

Comment by Mike

May 7, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

Did you miss the part of the story where the jail guards are now refusing to give Sam food? Even though he’s choosing not to eat, he might change his mind, yet they are using force to affect him even in this manner.

Comment by AnCapMan

May 7, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

I had a feeling the writs would fail. I should have said more on Monday. In NH A writ of habeas corpus us only valid after a conviction and sentencing. I did try to steer some people in the direction of the superior court’s rule review comitee. I should have been more blunt about my concerns but being an outsider and a guest I did not want to rock the boat.

The rules comitee should be first
Second, I would then father 150 dollars and as a group pay a lawyer for an hour or two of work on reccomendations for the next step.

On a side note all paper work submitted to the court under his alias was kind of a waste of time.

I support Sam in his right to remain totally silent. I also support his civ dis. I would just like for him to get out and as I hinted on Monday the writ of habeas corpus simply wouldn’t work. You could also appeal to the sherriff of Cheshire. I would first reccomwns the rules review committee to hve them review the illegal rule about cameras in the lobby which are not constitutional and the judge may not even have authority over the lobby of that court room.

Comment by Patrick Shields

May 7, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

Dub, I see your point and I felt the same way until recently. I think it is instinctual to say “He could have gotten out of this situation, so I don’t feel sorry for him.”

Nevertheless, I’m not going to second-guess Sam’s choice and I really am sympathetic for him now. You don’t need to be sympathetic, but I think if you just look at the situation–at the way he’s being treated and at the stand he chose to make–maybe you’ll change your mind.

Thanks for commenting!

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

The legal strategy is kind of a one-toe-in-the-pool venture because Sam doesn’t want to go that way. (I respect his decision and don’t aim to challenge it.) One-toe-in-the-pool ventures are doomed to failure IMO. In order to win on their terms one has to play on their terms and go the full way with applications to the NHCLU and who knows what other lawyers.

I’m guessing Sam’s purpose is to assert his own sovereignty / challenge the state and to get publicity. Can anyone who actually knows what Sam’s purpose is confirm or correct?

It’s like at Andrew Carroll’s trial when Andrew told the judge he didn’t have to enforce the law. Burke tries very hard to ignore that option.

If it’s outside-the-system stuff we’re doing, surely the aim is to get the individuals involved to do the right thing? And not to push the right buttons inside the system to get them to do what we want?

Comment by jzacker

May 7, 2009 @ 8:03 pm

> @jzacker What do you think is a threat exactly?

Judges can hold people in jail for a number of reasons, but not without review. Judges can hold people for 180 days in most states for contempt without any sort of jury or review. After 180 days, I believe a jury has to get involved. The judge merely told Sam he would be held until he gave his name to scare him. But in reality, no judge can or will hold someone indefinitely without some sort of review. But even after 180 days have elapsed, Sam may not get out. If the contempt (not giving name) is upheld, Sam will stay in jail. I think the longest period for being held in contempt is 3.5 years.

The judge also said that if Sam gave his name, he would be released. There is no doubt in my mind that the Judge would like to ‘move this along’. Judges have schedules of cases (usually referred to as calendars). Sam is on the judge’s calendar. The longer Sam stays on that calendar without resolution, the worse it looks for the judge. Judges don’t like to have stagnant calendars. It looks bad, and its one of the reasons why judges like plea deals. S oonce again, the judge would like Sam’s case to move a long, and his scare tactic of ‘NO TRIAL’ was just a means to get Sam off his calendar.

But make no mistake, Sam can be held for a very long time if he chooses not to cooperate.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

Is he actually being held on contempt charges? I’m not aware of that.

Comment by gg allin

May 7, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

so basically it seems…there is a good chance the judge had state approved authority over the use of cameras in the lobby…
and that although one has the right to remain silent, an individual must state their indentity to proceed to trial…
so right now its seems this is at a stalemate that sam is not going to win and is harming his health to make a statement against the fact that he feels one SHOULD be allowed to videotape in a court lobby.

I personally agree the public should have the right to film in a court setting, but I also would agree that a citizen involved in, for example; a rape case, has the right to avoid even the slightest chance being filmed.

IMO the effort used throughout this entire process could have been exerted towards a more meaningful cause and he is simply decreasing his lifespan over a very unfocused cause.

I read in one of sams early blogs that he didnt know why he intially went on a hunger strike and that only later did he form an idea to justify his strike.

“Mike” who posted above about sam not receiving meals even if he wanted them…are you serious? I hope you dont make these kinds of assumptions or just act like this in general daily.

Is it really that much of a suprise this hasn’t gotten any major media coverage?

Comment by Mike

May 7, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

Another prisoner in that jail wrote me a letter telling me about the guards refusing to give Sam food. That might not be trustworthy, as I don’t know who this person is (although I did trust him). But then Sam himself has said it during one of his calls to Free Talk Live.

GG, you said “I also would agree that a citizen involved in, for example; a rape case, has the right to avoid even the slightest chance being filmed.” If Jane has a “right” to not be filmed, then she is infringing on my right to film (this is assuming we both have equal rights to be in a certain place at the same time, like in a public lobby).

Another thing to consider is that, if Jane *does* have a “right” to not be filmed by me in the public courthouse lobby, does she also have that right in the stairwell leading to the lobby? How about on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse? On the street between the courthouse and where she parked? The problems these questions might bring rise to are really about the tragedy of the commons (http://is.gd/KCX), but they’re something to think about.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

GG – and all the other naysayers – I am still waiting to hear your proposals for “better” civil disobedience. I’m even more eager to see you actually do it. Lead. Someone will inevitably follow if you’re right.

I suspect people often make decisions without being able to immediately and explicitly explain or know why. This does not mean that their subsequent understanding of their reasons is a “justification”. You assume the worst. Give Sam some credit.

Examine yourself. Surely you have from time to time intuitively arrived at some conclusion but had to give yourself some time to understand your own reasoning.

If you think Sam has no chance to win, or is not already winning, you do not understand what he is doing. Please try harder to understand.

Comment by gg allin

May 7, 2009 @ 9:22 pm

“If Jane has a “right” to not be filmed, then she is infringing on my right to film (this is assuming we both have equal rights to be in a certain place at the same time, like in a public lobby).”

I can sympathize with both sides of the argument, but ultimately I think the case of a victims rights holds more weight…unfortunatley it seems like the state could use this as leverage.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

While I sympathize with victims of violent crime, as long as justice is a public business, its business is public.

Comment by gg allin

May 7, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

this essentialy is the root of this entire argument between the state and the activists…

rights of the victim vs rights of the public

I think I side with the victims rights; explaining my unapologetic stance on sams current situation

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

If you’re so big on the rights of victims of violent crime, where is your consistency when it comes to Sam Dodson? IOW when the aggressor is the state?

Comment by gg allin

May 7, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

What violence?

He went limp and as a result had to be carried…he went on a hunger strike and as a result is now suffering.

What violence?

Comment by George Donnelly

May 7, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

Violence committed by the state against Sam includes:

- restraining him with handcuffs
- loading him into a police car
- holding him against his will in a prison

Comment by gg allin

May 7, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

weak argument bro

Comment by charley hardman

May 8, 2009 @ 12:28 am

Is there any way we could get him some protein drinks or something so he has some more sustenance?

if that’s how a “hunger strike” works, just get him a blender. but talk to ian first, because he might advise sending in nine blenders in case they’re all broken.

Comment by jzacker

May 8, 2009 @ 1:32 am

>>Is he actually being held on contempt charges? I’m not aware of that.

No, he is being held on $10,000 bail. But let’s face it, it’s only because he isn’t giving his name. I bet if he came up with the $10,000, he would still be held for not giving his name. And conversely, if he gives his name, he will be let out immediately.

Judges can hold people in contempt for hindering the ‘process’. It’s a very powerful tool that helps judges keep ‘order’ in and out of the courtroom.

We’ve already seen these judges sentence Ian to 93 days over a couch. Once Ian cooperated, everything went smoothly. If Sam cooperates, everything will go smoothly for him too.

Comment by Paul

May 8, 2009 @ 1:49 am

GG,

There are plenty of ways to protect victims privacy. This has nothing to do with that. NH law states that there must be a specific request made in order to prohibit filming, and it must be shown that filming would result in harm. No such request was made, nor were there any victims recorded. The blanket rule was put into place after Mr. Burke was embarrassed on youtube. I am sure that if a private citizen actually requested not to be filmed, Sam would have honored the request.

This is all about protecting bureaucrats from public scrutiny, but as usual, they pull out the “for the children” excuse.

And yes, arresting someone and throwing them in jail is violence. If a person with a gun put you in handcuffs and threw you in their cage I am sure you would consider that violent behavior.

Comment by Paul

May 8, 2009 @ 2:11 am

GG,

Just to clarify, if a private person specifically asked not to be filmed, and Sam did so anyway, and harm came to that person because of it, I do think it would be reasonable to expect Sam to pay restitution.

We are miles away from anything approaching that situation. No person requested not to be filmed, no person was filmed who did not want to be filmed, and no harm came to any person because they were filmed.

Even aside from the original arrest, whatever happened to the right to remain silent? Do you think life in prison is a reasonable punishment for refusing to give your name? What’s more, the court already HAS his name.

This is about control, plain and simple. This is not about protecting anyone from harm, this is about making sure to crush any glimmer of disobedience to the every whim of bureaucrats.

They don’t need his name, they need him to capitulate.

Comment by Jeff

May 8, 2009 @ 2:27 am

Guys, you really should start getting organized. If you let this slide around at random like it’s been doing, Sam will be dead and you won’t have accomplished anything.

Has anyone contacted the ACLU?

Since this was originally about clarification of video taping, the EFF might get involved. Has anyone contacted them?

Are there other civil rights organizations which might help? Or link to the story? Or suggest a course of action?

Do you have a web page which clearly describes what happened, so that you can refer people when they have questions? Can other sites link to it?

Is it free of innuendo and rhetoric? Does it have a tone which turns people away? Does it say who to contact if people want to help?

Do you have an edited version of the video/audio which shows what happened? That can be posted on YouTube? That can be linked to? (Is it short and free of rhetoric, or does it turn people away?)

What are the requirements to start a civil suit for false arrest? Is there a way to bring a judge up for review based on misconduct? What are the requirements?

Does New Hampshire have a “Must Identify” law?

Since Sam was roughed up at the arrest, has anyone filed a bad conduct complaint with the police?

Are there any local investigative reporters who would want to do a story on jailhouse conditions? I hear the Boston Globe is having trouble – are any of their reporters hungry for a story?

You’ve got a bunch of people who are willing to demonstrate for 4 hours. Maybe you should consider taking those aggregate hours and working to a different end.

You could accomplish a lot in a even a single day.

Comment by bile

May 8, 2009 @ 5:09 am

Jeff,

http://sam.jailedactivist.info has just about every bit of information regarding the incident as I’ve been able to find. I believe the NHCLU was contacted but they weren’t interested as I understand. I’m not sure if anyone called the EFF. There has been press release put out.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 8, 2009 @ 6:48 am

Paul, I disagree with you there. If anyone is filmed in a public place – where they should have no reasonable expectation of privacy – there is no reason why anyone owes them anything no matter what comes of the videotaping.

And as long as people are forced to make their legal matters public business at force-funded courts, their business must be public.

Jzacker, I think there are enough voices clamoring for surrender already. Another is not needed.

Jeff, I contacted the NHCLU very early on but that’s not the way Sam wants to go.

See http://freesamdodson.com as well as bile’s site for all the details and coverage.

Comment by Paul

May 8, 2009 @ 7:09 am

I see your point of view George, I think you make a good point.

Regardless, it should be noted that this situation has nothing to do with anyone getting filmed against their will. It’s a complete red herring.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 8, 2009 @ 7:14 am

Hey Paul, I think it’s a valid concern but not a strong argument for making people beg to exercise freedom of the press.

I emailed the EFF.

Comment by Paul

May 8, 2009 @ 7:37 am

Hey George, I suppose I agree, public areas should be fair game. Really, every property should be owned, so the owner can set the rules. Then, when you add the fact that people are being forced to attend the court, on top of the fact that it doesn’t even have a clear owner, the topic gets even more blurred.

By the way, when I said the bit about being a red herring, I meant that Sam’s situation doesn’t really have anything to do with this debate anyway — since no one even requested not to be filmed.

Good points though

Comment by dub

May 8, 2009 @ 8:13 am

“Violence committed by the state against Sam includes:

- restraining him with handcuffs
- loading him into a police car
- holding him against his will in a prison”

come on really? That’s called doing their job, a job they wouldn’t have to do if dude just shut off his camera. This isn’t a case of “mugger wants your wallet” because the mugger goes in with the intention of taking something from you no matter what. This is the case of a stubborn elitist who refused to comply with a simple request

Also complaining about jail conditions? really? in New Hampshire? come on, at least if you are gonna hate on that pick Chicago or NY or a jail that actually has bad conditions and locks people up for race more than crime.

This guy could be out whenever he wants, he ain’t being held against any will other than his own

Comment by Lpviper

May 8, 2009 @ 9:53 am

What you don’t see, dub, is that they didn’t have to do that ‘job’ at all. A true peace officer would have seen that Sam was not harming anyone and LEFT HIM ALONE.

‘This is the case of a stubborn elitist who refused to comply with a simple request’

What does that even mean? If it’s a ‘request’ then compliance should be optional, should it not?

Name one good reason (that means NOT ‘he was told, asked, requested, the judge said to’) that Sam should have turned off his video camera in a place that violence dictates he holds an ownership ’stake’ in?

‘This guy could be out whenever he wants, he ain’t being held against any will other than his own’

If that is true then Sam should just be able to walk right past the guards and on out the door, isn’t that true? If I remember correctly, the jail is locked, and they aren’t letting him out. So your statement above is, I can say without reservation, ABSURD.

Comment by dub

May 8, 2009 @ 9:56 am

Name one good reason why crying like a girl while getting dragged into a police car and then refusing to eat is worth making a point that no one will ever take seriously enough to make any changes?

Tell me, what exactly is going to come of all this? Better jail conditions? Nope. The allowing of people to videotape in court? Nope. Any charges brought against any police or officials? Nope. Any real press regarding the “civil injustice”? Nope.

The only thing that’s going to come of this is police being more and more skeptical of white privileged libertarians and taking them less and less seriously.

Rosa Parks got national attention, this guy isn’t even getting state attention, it’s a lost cause

Comment by bile

May 8, 2009 @ 10:06 am

Again with the race (and some sexism it could be said). What do you hope to accomplish by being a bigot and pessimist and not answering the questions posed to you?

The reason the Parks incident became national is because it was more or less planned and exploited by those involved by boycotting the companies for more than a year. Before there was Parks there was Claudette Colvin and almost no one has heard of her… doesn’t make what she did pointless.

Comment by George Donnelly

May 8, 2009 @ 10:21 am

Dub, you can see the future? You already know what will or will not result from Sam’s principled stand against arbitrary power? Is this the kind where you use a crystal ball? Or is it like in Heroes where your eyes get white and you draw pictures?

Comment by Dvishnu

May 8, 2009 @ 10:23 am

Sam must’ve struck a nerve in Dub….I don’t think you realize why Sam is putting himself through hell based on your response… He’s not going through of this to change them as much as to show everyone that the group of men and women who run the fiction known as the United States is far worse than the most vile mafia that ever existed…His incarceration has proven this…

Although I disagree with his course of action (I prefer not to give the “established” mafia any of my energy), he has my respect and support….

By the way, he is getting plenty of attention…Just not from the major networks…

Comment by Mike

May 8, 2009 @ 10:29 am

That’s a good point, dvishnu. When people’s reactions are near the extremes of the scale of what’s “normal,” it’s likely they are affected by it in ways they are not addressing (and possibly not even consciously knowing). I need to keep that in mind more often. Thanks.

Comment by Markus

May 8, 2009 @ 10:35 am

George D. wrote:

“Violence committed by the state against Sam includes:

- restraining him with handcuffs
- loading him into a police car
- holding him against his will in a prison”

DUB, you wrote:
come on really? That’s called doing their job, a job they wouldn’t have to do if dude just shut off his camera. This isn’t a case of “mugger wants your wallet” because the mugger goes in with the intention of taking something from you no matter what. This is the case of a stubborn elitist who refused to comply with a simple request
++++++++++++++++

Dub, are you aware of the law that says members of the press shall be allowed to record?

And what do you think about your City Officials breaking this law and holding a peaceful person in a cage, when it wasn’t him that broke the law?

Can you imagine not breaking the law and then being put in a cage for no reason and then being told to submit and answer to those who kidnapped you when you were harming no one?

Can you not see how this would be a crime if anyone else did it?

PS: Do you wear Rose Colored glasses?

Comment by Markus

May 8, 2009 @ 10:45 am

Just a detail Regarding Sam giving his name, I seem to recall where Sam said he gave them his P.O. Box number, instead of his name, as a way of identifying himself without saying his name.

Wouldn’t it be odd to know you could get out of jail by saying just two words you are very familiar with…your name.

Comment by dub

May 8, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

@dvishnu – “fiction known as the united states” really? wow, that’s cute

and “getting plenty of attention, just not from the major networks”…that’s all that matters really

@markus – “Can you imagine not breaking the law and then being put in a cage for no reason and then being told to submit and answer to those who kidnapped you when you were harming no one?” uh yeah, it happens to thousands of minorities every year. it has been happening for centuries, in fact this entire country has been built and continues to thrive on that.

and for those of you who say i’m “bringing race into this”, it’s already there, you are all just choosing to ignore it, which is typical of people with white privilege

Comment by Lpviper

May 8, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

cognitive dissonance, anyone?

And by the way, dub, you did not answer even ONE of my questions, so why should I answer yours?

Comment by Lpviper

May 8, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

But, I will make the attempt.

‘Name one good reason why crying like a girl while getting dragged into a police car and then refusing to eat is worth making a point that no one will ever take seriously enough to make any changes?’

Ignoring the inherent falsehoods in this statement, it’s not really making a point, it is simply asserting one’s natural rights. Whatever comes of that is a natural outgrowth of Sam’s actions or inactions and those of the state.

‘Tell me, what exactly is going to come of all this? Better jail conditions? Nope. The allowing of people to videotape in court? Nope. Any charges brought against any police or officials? Nope. Any real press regarding the “civil injustice”? Nope.’

Again, I will ignore that fact that you attempted to answer for me, and I will say, I have no idea. I have no crystal ball. Apparently you do, though. May I borrow it? I don’t want to die in a car wreck or something silly like that if I can prevent it.

‘The only thing that’s going to come of this is police being more and more skeptical of white privileged libertarians and taking them less and less seriously.’

That’s what will come of it for YOU, dub, but if public opinion turns away from the tyrants and toward those who decide to assert their natural rights, then there will definitely be a different result for the police and the court bureaucrats.

‘ Rosa Parks got national attention, this guy isn’t even getting state attention, it’s a lost cause’

Thank you for your opinion. Any fresh ideas of things that are NOT a lost cause? Love to hear them if you have them.

Thanks

Comment by bile

May 8, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

Bringing up race, gender and economic class are typical diversions of the modern liberals, Marxists and the like. Rather than debate the situation at hand they wish to place people into groups, stereotype and project the bigotry they claim to fight. Perhaps even worse than the bigotry is the ignorance. How does dub know the background of Sam or anyone else here? Ethnic, economic, etc.?

Perhaps dub can explain to my Asian, African, African American, female, Latino, etc. libertarian friends and associates about how the libertarian movement is for the privileged white male.

Comment by Dvishnu

May 8, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

Dub sez……..“fiction known as the united states” really? wow, that’s cute

The fact that you’re under the delusion that the US is a living entity in which all who live within its declared landmass are morally subject to it arbitrary authority is not my problem nor concern…

A better question would be why are you trolling here?

Comment by Lpviper

May 8, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Doesn’t matter why, dvishnu. The point is to refute nonsense with logic, and without nonsense to refute, there can be no logical refutation.

The trolls help our cause with their irrationality

Comment by DJ

May 8, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

What happened, Dub? I had hope for you. Until hubris, bigotry, and vitrol started spewing from your gaping maw. Almost had me with the talk of changing tyranical laws from the inside! Sadly, I then realized having your head firmly placed so far up the goverment’s tail-pipe would only turn you into another statist. Which is glaringly obvious with your tired-old-cliches, Nuremburg denying, cranial-rectal inverted mind.

Violence committed by the state against Jews include:

- restraining them with handcuffs
- loading them into cattle cars
- holding them against their will in gas chambers

In which Dub would proudly exclaim…

come on really? That’s called doing their job, a job they wouldn’t have to do if they would just leave Germany.

Indeed, Dub. Heaven forbid the “privilaged white” people fight for things, like freedom. Just get into the cattle car, shut up and don’t cry like a girl, and everything will be alright.

That, unfortunately, sums you up. It’s sick, really. Seek help…

Comment by dub

May 8, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

There is a difference between trying to educate people with action, and going to the extreme where people just laugh you off as irrational, ya’ll seemed to have passed that line a while back

Also I love that for people who have such an incredible knowledge of history that you would be so against recognizing the idea of white privilege, although I suppose acknowledging it kinda hurts the whole american pride and tradition thing, seeing as without white privilege none of us (myself included) would be here in this country of supposed freedoms

Ya’ll are clearly good people and at the end of the day I love what you are willing to do to stand up to an oppressor such as the government and with good reason, but there has to be a platform as well as extreme actions. Plus give-and-take always gets your further than just take-by-force (unless of course you are the government)

Comment by Lpviper

May 8, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

There is no more left to give, dub. They have taken too much already. It’s time to stand up and tell them no. And if that means they lock you up for what seems like nothing, that’s only because they know the spot they’re in and they have to force obedience and make it seem like legitimate action. When the big media finally starts covering this type of thing, they will be in deeeeeeeeeeeeeep shit and they know it.

The end of coercive government is coming. Get on the good side of the tracks or the NEW mainstream media will be ridiculing YOU

Oh and all that ‘race’ crap is just that, crap. Means nothing to an individualist, and I can say that confidently as a former ardent bigot. The liberty movement showed me how to love people for their individual merits. Get on board and you can love your fellow man too

Comment by dub

May 9, 2009 @ 7:31 am

Doesn’t matter what one individual thinks about race, the laws in this country are built on racism and continue to thrive on it. You can be an individual all day and still benefit from white privilege. It’s all around you, it’s been there since inception. It stems from superiority and it is what has kept white people on top for the entire history of the country.

Even if you are an individualist you are still affected by what goes on around you, and white privilege is most definitely still there

Comment by Scott

May 9, 2009 @ 8:28 am

I think there is some confusion about what is going on here. Having worked with the courts for 16 years, the hierarchy is as follows, Judges, God, common people. Burke will not blink. Why? Because Sam can leave the jail anytime he wants even without providing his name. I think that key fact is what many are missing. The criminal case will not proceed per burke until sam gives his name. He can leave the jail anytime he ponies up the $10,000. Then theoretically, the case case would never go to court until burke changes his order. Again, SAM IS NOT IN JAIL FOR NOT GIVING HIS NAME. HE IS IN JAIL FOR FAILING TO POST BOND.

Comment by Lpviper

May 9, 2009 @ 8:47 am

‘Why? Because Sam can leave the jail anytime he wants even without providing his name.’

‘He can leave the jail anytime he ponies up the $10,000.’

These are not the same thing, Scott, but you fit them both into one paragraph. Either he can leave anytime he wants, or he can pay a $10,000 extortion to get out. Not both.

Dub, you will be a miserable man (or woman) for the rest of your life if you continue to create this bigoted racist reality for yourself. I know plenty of people who have made a success of their lives, and their attitudes are way more relevant than their skin color. Snap out of it, dude, and embrace your fellow man as your brother.

Comment by Jeff

May 9, 2009 @ 9:37 am

Dub,

What would you say if I were to tell you you’re ‘free’ to either give me $10,000.00 or capitulate to whatever other demands I deem fit, or I can come find you, kidnap you, and lock you in a box forever or until you decide to volunteer to my demands? Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention, there’s two hundred people that signed a piece of paper that said I could do it.

That’d be OK with you, right?

Comment by Dvishnu

May 9, 2009 @ 10:07 am

“White privilege” seems to work well with with the likes of Barack Obama, Alcee Hastings, Andrew Young, Colin Powell, Mike Powell, Condolezza Rice, Carrie Meeks, Kendrick Meeks, and many other politically connected African Americans….

None of the above have any compunction about initiating force against people of all races who haven’t harmed anyone in any way shape or form….

Okay Dub, now we come to the point of true honesty….

Should a product or service be provided to an individual at the threat of physical violence? It’s a YES or NO question… You may elaborate as to why if you wish……

Comment by Anton Lee

May 9, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

Dubba must be a government goon. I find it amusing how these people blindly continue to follow those who want to hurt people.

“They’re just doing their jobs”

do you mean “we’re”?? Do you get some sort of satisfaction out of hurting and stealing from others? Perhaps someday you’ll get the same treatment, and you will, and you’ll cry harder than anyone. You’ll cry because guilt will take over inside of you and you’ll realize that the slop coming from your fingertips and your mouth were so wrong.

and you’ll never feel like you can make it right.

Comment by dub

May 9, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

The fact that Barack Obama had to downplay his color so much is proof of white privilege.

I have “invented” a racist bigoted reality? You know what, I shouldn’t assume any less from people in Keene, have you even seen a person of color in the last 100 years?

All those people of color listed above had to downplay their color to get where they are and had to subscribe to the white ideals in order to get where they are.

History tells the story of a nation of whites who came here, killed an entire civilization of people, then bought a bunch of people off of boats and used them to build the nation. Then when someone decided it wasn’t cool to own people anymore they fought and fought and fought to keep their ownership rights. So then little by little people of color were given “rights” and “freedoms” that of course they couldn’t exercise because it’s one thing to say “oh yes you can buy a house” and it’s another thing to say “oh we’re sorry your application has been denied, not because of race of course, just because”

If the whole point of this is just to say “government stay the hell away from me” then that’s fine but to go on about treatment of people when all of you are treated so much better than thousands of others based on your skin color alone, is ridiculous

Comment by Lpviper

May 9, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

‘I shouldn’t assume any less from people in Keene, have you even seen a person of color in the last 100 years?’

Excuse me, sir, but I live in Metropolitan Detroit. I know lots of black people. Good people and bad people. I know lots of white people. Good people and bad people.

‘to go on about treatment of people when all of you are treated so much better than thousands of others based on your skin color alone, is ridiculous’

No, sir, what is ridiculous is your assertion that people have no right to assert their natural rights because their ancestors may have owned black people 150 years ago. The word that comes into my head to describe it is ‘RETARDED’.

‘The fact that Barack Obama had to downplay his color so much is proof of white privilege.’

Bullshit, dude, that was all anybody talked about and you know it. If he personally downplayed it that was his choice, he certainly didn’t ‘have’ to.

‘All those people of color listed above had to downplay their color to get where they are and had to subscribe to the white ideals in order to get where they are.’

The ‘white’ ideals? What the hell does that mean? None of the black people I know have ideals that are any different from mine. There’s something wrong with you, dub. What is this whole ‘people of color’ thing all about anyway? They are black people. I know many black people who would be offended simply by you calling them a ‘person of color’. It’s condescending by virtue of its very honey-smoothness. Yuck, dude. Yuck. You are starting to creep me out.

Comment by repost

May 9, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

I feel that Ian, Sam, or whatever he chooses to call himself for the day is doing nothing but trying to draw attention to himself as the victim. I was an inmate at the Cheshire House of correction, and there have been many times when I was waiting for my tray in the same line that he was in, never was he refused a tray. He always took it and traded it with somebody else for something. He has nothing to do so he plays this political game trying to make something out of absolutely nothing, more attention for Ian, Sam, or again, whoever he chooses to be just another game.

As for the officers, I find them to be very respectful, I have unfortunately been in other institutions and find Cheshire House of Corrections to be the most respectful, the officers were always available to listen when I had something to say or when I needed something from clothing change, haircuts, etc,,,,, Ian, Sam has never been denied anything, he has always been treated with respect no matter what he has asked for. I feel people should just ignore him and not give him the satisfaction of feeding into his games, lies.

In my brief conversations with him I found him to beconsistently trying to come up with something else to get more attention cast on him. He thrives on attention for phony causes.

Just ignore this guy, he is no better than anybody else. He has his followers who have no idea what is really going on inside the jail accept for what he proclaims, and the media as well.

Comment by bile

May 9, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

I work in Manhattan. In my job the white male is a minority. Those who are white, many have something other than English as their primary language.

As for Obama. He’s of mixed background. He’s not “black”. Unless you are a subscriber of the old one drop rule.

As for slavery of Africans in the Americas… it was the Africans who put them on the ships.

dub is talking like a Marxist. As in beliefs are designated by class and race. It’s a completely bigoted and obviously false theory. dub is being nothing more than a troll. Rather than arguing the merits of an idea they attack the person who holds it.

Comment by bile

May 9, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

Bigotry exists and will always exist. To claim that you can quantify how biases such as those has effected anyone over time is rather silly. Everyone I know who has done well in their lives have done so because they desired it and drove for it. western european, eastern european, hispanic, asian, african, native, etc. The whole “white privilege” thing is self induced and a crutch. My father was treated like shit for being a Sicilian growing up. He’s done just fine for himself because he took control rather than bitch about it and ask for a hand out which inevitably is what the victim mindset leads to. From reparations to welfare. They are systems to keep the poor in those economic positions.

And as I recall… even with all the historical baggage… the poor in the US have more mobility than in other well off nations because we are relatively economically free.

Comment by Taylor

May 11, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

Wow. I feel sorry for Sam’s parents… Could you imagine what drama would arise from asking this dude to clean up his room?

Comment by Sam's Dad

May 11, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

Well Taylor you should feel sorry for yourself. I could not ask for a better son. I am extremely proud of everything her has accomplished and achieved. Sam grew up respective other peoples rights and property. Nothing was ever given to Sam. He had to work for everything he has. Sam knows nothing is free in life and he understands that if you want to get ahead in life you have to work for it and doing the best you can at everything you set out for. He understands that when you fail you didn’t try hard enough. He also knows it is OK to fail. Life is all about priorities and values. Sam does not compromise on either. Sam knows no strangers and has no enemies. He will do anything for anyone. Don’t believe, me just ask him. When he and I talked before his moving up there, he understood that he would have to be extraordinary careful in all that set sets out to do and achieve. He also knew it would not be an easy thing to do and achieve, but he thrives on opportunities and possibilities as he learns and grows with them. I am so sorry to disappoint you but there is no drama with Sam and there has never been.
Sam’s Dad

Comment by Paul

May 11, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

Taylor, the government is not our father or mother. To think that it is — or to think that we need to obey all of its arbitrary dictates, regardless of their morality or legality, is absurd.

We are all free adults, same as the members of government. They are not higher beings than us, nor do they have some special divine right to rule over others.

Arresting a free, equal adult who comitted no harm, and holding him indefinitely without a trial is extremely immoral. Sam is standing up for what is right, which requires a lot more maturity, personal responsibility, and bravery than it does to pretend government has the right or ability to run your life.

If our early leaders who broke from England could see the degree to which we have abdicated our rights as free adults, and allowed the government to “mommy” and control us, they would be shocked.